Wilson Audio Specialties Alexandria XLF loudspeaker Page 3

Have you heard Roberto Gerhard's cantata The Plague? Better to hear it than buy it. This 1973 performance, with Antal Dor†ti conducting the National Symphony Orchestra and Chorus (LP, Decca Headline HEAD 6), recorded at Constitution Hall by an engineering team led by Kenneth Wilkinson, is a gruesome affair that is every bit the horror show its title suggests. But what a recording! The timpani thwacks sound great through the MAXX 3sbut through the XLFs they went deeper, were better controlled and far more transparent, and lacked a slightly hard leading edge that I now know is a coloration produced by the MAXX 3s. I'd never heard this record sound so powerful, so spatially coherent, so tonally convincing. The XLFs' ability to reproduce an illusion of depth, despite being placed so close to the walls, never failed to amaze me. And both the chorus and the narrator, Alec McCowan, sounded eerily real, with the best balance I've heard of vocal sibilants and body.

Unlike the bass output of most large speakers, which tends to soften and lose shape at low SPLs, the ca 94dB-sensitive Alexandria could be played at whisper levels with no loss of bass structure or rhythmic integrity. The cleanness and precision of the XLF's ability to start and stop at low frequencies and low SPLs was unique in my experience.

Not that I specifically listen for such things. I notice them only when my wife screams from upstairs for me to "Turn those effing things downyou're shaking the whole house!!" Otherwise, I'd always want to listen at realistic SPLs!

A $200,000/pair speaker capable of such robust bass does need to pass certain testssuch as hearing if bottom-end weight clouds the lower registers of female voices. I played Ella Fitzgerald, Diana Krall, Joan Baez, and some of the deeper-voiced jazz singers, such as Sarah Vaughan and Nina Simone. When bass was not supposed to be present, it wasn't. When one of these chesty singers reached down to the lower end of her range, only the appropriate low-frequency energy appeared: focused, of proper size, and in contextnot as general, otherwise unidentifiable "bass."

I have an original pressing of the superb recording of Canteloube's Songs of the Auvergne, by the late soprano Netania Davrath with an orchestra conducted by Pierre de la Rouche (LP, Vanguard VSD-2090), said to be the definitive version of this cycle of orchestral folk-song settings. It's the only one I've heard, but it puts Davrath in a warm, large-sounding space that has never been more apparent than it was through the XLFsyet her voice, floating magnificently between the speakers, never mixed with it. I had never heard her small-scale dynamic vocal gestures so clearly delineated.

The XLF's harmonic presentation was as fully realized as its performance in every other parameter of sound. The full ranges of instruments in well-recorded symphonic music and orchestral film scores were reproduced with rich, full palettes of colors that would surprise skeptics who regard the Wilson "house sound" as overly lean and analytical. The XLF was anything but. Yet instrumental attacks were naturally fast and clean, sustain generous, and decay into blackness complete.

Despite its wide bandwidth and complex design, the XLF's top-to-bottom integration of its drivers' outputs was masterful, surpassing that of any speaker I've reviewed. From the very bottom, which Wilson claims goes down to 19.5Hz, to the very top, a claimed 33kHz, the speaker produced vast, seamless pictures or delicately drawn, equally unified miniatures, as appropriate.

The most familiar recordingsat least, those that I had time to playexpressed subtle, occasionally dramatic, new, and often profound musical information in just about every performance parameter. Listening to music through the Wilson Alexandria XLFs was a transformative experience. And that's the least you should expect for $200,000.

Conclusions
Can a pair of loudspeakers possibly be worth $200,000? Can an automobile? Can a diamond? In all three instances, the answer can be Yes. Value is in the ears, hands, and eyes of the potential purchaser.

But a loudspeaker costing $200,000/pair should represent a fully realized concept that produces the ultimate expression of every performance parameter related to musical accuracy. It should reproduce the full audioband, from 20Hz to 20kHz, and do so while seamlessly integrating the outputs of its drivers to produce exceptionally linear frequency response from bottom to top across a usefully wide listening window, along with stable, well-controlled power response in the upper frequencies.

It should set a very high standard of very low coloration and distortion, particularly in the difficult-to-reproduce low-bass frequencies. It should have unlimited micro- and macrodynamic authority, and be able to play at very high and very low SPLs and everywhere in between, and sound equally good at all points along that volume scale.

It should set new standards of transient clarity, transparency, and purity. It should accurately express the harmonic structures and timbral and textural characteristics of musical instruments, limited only by the quality of the recording.

It should take to new levels the focused reproduction of three-dimensional images, as well as soundstage width, depth, and height.

It should do all of these things in a balanced, seamless way to produce a transparent loudspeaker that gets more out of the way of the music, than other speakers.

It should be sensitive and relatively easy to drive, and be designed in such a way that its performance can be optimized for a wide variety of real-world rooms both large and small, and under difficult acoustic conditions.

Finally, it should be built to the highest standards of fit'n'finish inside and out, and look great as wellalthough, of course, form must follow function, and tastes will differ.

And, technically speaking, it should sound amazing, get your heart racing, and set your audiophile hair afire each and every time you sit down to listen.

For all of those reasons, and probably a few I've missed, the Wilson Audio Specialties Alexandria XLF is worth $200,000/pair.

As I've told JRusskie in the Forums, I'll tell you as well... Dear Georgie, the way you form your arguments and present them in these discussions make for great study material in the research of logic, cognitive skills, and personality. Would make a wonderful project for an undergraduate study, since the two of you are not very complex.

If you haven't noticed, my posts are only to you and JRusskie. And they're always relevant to something...

In many respects, how you and JRusskie argue against John Atkinson and his staff at Stereophile actually confirms that they are on the right track.

1) I agree with the frequency response plot: looks ridiculous, and would expect at most a +/- 3db variation over 20Hz to 20 KHz, wishfully at most +/- 1 db, given the price.

2) I've loved the sound of the Wilson X1 in the past. Not so much the Sophia and Sasha as of late, but my tastes have changed, and so have the partnering electronics. Size wise, the Alexia is more suited to my present condo than the XLF.

3) I'd love to hear this speaker and see how it compares to the Focal Grande Utopia EM and the more recent Magico (Q7).

As professional loudspeaker engeneer for 30 years I would like to give my compliments to Mr Atkinson for his ever realistic quotes about the measurements;we use same equipment and I measured same speakers with same measurement results in past.The discussion i red above here is more emo-/phsycological than about real facts.200k is lot of money;and blind-staring at frequency-responses within 0,5dB is like drilling to water on the moon.

As every commercial product,at any price,the direct costs are about 1/8 from retail price.We all buy that,every day.I know a car is about 1/10th direct cost;and we all by cars (stil).

So wake up,dont focus on direct costs,imagine-or try to-how many hours of development for a new design like this?Some high-end speaker (direct information)manufacturers spend one year with 30 people à 150/h to design a new speaker.Take your calculator now.I measured on many Wilson products and to my opinion its real well build,units are modified very clever;that's the "x-factor" say the magic why some speakers sound so very good.Wilson excells in this.Btw i have no business-relation with Wilson.

I never read DIY fora,gives me bad stomach of nitwit people 99% of the time;everybody with bucks can buy a scanspeak or accuton;and think they can do it better.So,if than,elevate a company and sell your speakers worldwide! What a real good design is,is not that flat freq curve,not that ripple-free imp curve or symmetric cross-over curve,but the sum of 100 other parameters;and thats a very intensive and intelligent process,besides of taste etc.

Better talk about design philosofics;aiming the goal;relation between measurements and what you hear.thats the clue.Thank you.

i know that , but the frequeney response is a part of the sound quality, bad frequency responce make bad speaker, the sound is better when the fréquency response is flatter, and a ripple in the imp curve in usable fréquency response is for below average driver

wilson audio have make a bas speaker for the price, adam in deuchland have really good engeenering speaker, very clever design, excellent tweeter, when they see this design they probably laught

for a fraction of this price i can buy an adam audio s7a mk2, whith good implémentation this speaker have not the bad mesuring and the sound of the wilson audio, it is better, they know how utilise good driver, the high-medium air motion transformer is an exceptionnal driver

the only problèm is the size and the basic black finish but good finish

this technologie if it corectly use, is beter than any dôme, except the french acoustical beauty driver whith no iron in the and a ferrofluid join in the motor

I see Stereophile likes to delete honest answers but allows really vile posts to stay on here when it benifits them.

I have now posted several warnings in various threads that I will delete without notice comments that are nothing more than flames, in my opinion. If a comment, while being strongly worded, expresses a sentiment that I feel deserves to see the light of day, whether pro- or con-Stereophile, I leave it up, though I may well delete some of the content if it consists of flames.

I try to be consistent, but if you have a problem with our moderation of this site, then there is nothing that compels you to post to it, GeorgeHolland.

I registered here just to say this. This was my first time on the Stereophile website and this was the first review I read. In reading the comments I was quite surprised when I realized the guy who was making some of the worst, most flaming comments was the guy who wrote the review himself.

If your policy is to delete posts that consist of nothing more than flames or to delete that content from those posts, I think you need to do some serious work on Michael Fremer's own comments. What is a flame if not "Your iggnorance is only matched by your spellllling," period; no further content? His remarks are extremely unprofessional, discourteous, knee-jerk, insulting, and I would say go beyond anything said about him by a wide margin (unless something considerably nastier than what remains was removed earlier). I'm surprised there is no policy in place that staff should be above whatever chaos occurs in the comments and should always maintain some manner of decorum when participating. Frankly, in many, if not the vast majority of, professions, his behavior would be worthy of serious reprimand/firing.

Im just her to say that I used to read stereophile, found the magazine completely snobby, and useless to real people, and i completely agree with nothing to say. I also feel that mikey boy needs to calm down and actually have a conversation rather than simple berate others that do not share his opinion. I don't exactly agree with george either. But if I were editor, mike would be in the unemployment line. I believe he is being overly defensive because he knows he wasted $200k on speakers that could never be worth that much.. Good luck trying to get your money back. But I'm sure mike will just call me names as well... Not that anything he says has any meaning.

@Mr GH;so,if you are in the biss of the DIY-what i read between the lines-,or maybe feel connected;than,i can understand you feel not OK by my text about my quote that 99% of the DIY designers are nitwitts.I dont talk to- or point in direction to people who buy a DIY-kit.I aim on the people (pfff...see my text before) who buy expensive drive-units and think they can copy (what is illegal by law;is "intellectual property"-issue) a renowned/famous/expensive design or think that they can even make it better.Almost zero chance-seen that.Besides,what i told in my previous post,is related to 30 years of experience in the speakerworld.Been there done that.Ego is biggest ennemy of forward thinking and end-result;so i stepped on it?Sorry for you.As you are probably or maybe an inmortatant player in the DIY industry you feel not OK with my pure personal conclusions.Reality hurts,sometimes.Thats life.I dont even give a blink about your megalomane quote about banning.And;whats your "affiliation"??Or are you the God of speaker-industry who thinks he is above all?see header.

@Billyjul;thank you for your kind and fair reply;I am familiar with these AMT's-say Air Motion Transformers-i measured them on a reference baffle (IEC) as we do with every drive-unit; and my conclusions are same as yours;the only minus is a trade off in the horizontal beaming,since the width of the membrane is quite wide the beaming starts at relatively low frequency;(343/width membrane in meters-than divede to 2 is average frequency start beaming)so,in practice,the horizontal spational-amplitude response is worth considering.Nothing is perfect.Tune the filtering to flat response on 15dgrees to 10Khz..Distortion is about 0,05%measured at 95dB;not cheap drivers but for real high-end systems one of the best solutions.

Mike among the companies I worked for as a rep where Mc Intosh, Dynaco, Hafler, and Hafler Pro, Sherwood,Rockford Fosgate Jim Fosgate,AR, NHT, ADS, NAD, PSB, Ixos, and Esoteric Audio. I also worked as a Buyer for 8 years,and did two of the LA Stereophile shows. SO you give me a break. I have heard many Wilson speakers(Not this one) and I'm not impresed by them. I have never judged a audio product without a listen.If you had read my post I was defending Micky's choice to by the Wilsons. I just said they don't do anything for me as a audiophile.

I ask this simply because I'd never heard anything I liked from earlier Wilsons, including generation of W/Ps and the Maxx 2s, and even some newer models like the Sophia 3, but to me the Sasha and Alexia have been truly special sonically, finally not suffering from the "cones in a box" disease of most dynamic designs.

if you use corectly a driver, you can't go wrong, on internet there a quantity of utilitise to simulate parametters, listenig for learn how make a speaker

but construct a driver is far difficult, it is a crutial point, a good speaker bigin whith good drivers, and goods drivers choice to have a good intégration

whith a good reflexion you can make not a good, but a very good speaker in 2voice, a three voice is more complicate

i think,

"David Wilson, amateur! That guy just throws a few drivers in a box and wants 200 grand. I could do better than that"

yes, i agree his speaker have problem, the integration of the drivers, in the cabinet and the design of this are the problem i think

an exemple, the focal berylium tweeter have to be flush mounted on the cabinet, is you don't do this , the response curve is awfull, not flat, flush mounted it is excellent, and the sound is realy better

whtih air motion transformer you can do to directive driver, i think one of the best design is the adam adio x-ART but the model whith the most powerfull magnet, for the high-end speaker

and they have an high medium whitch is a very interesting driver, he goes lower than most other, and they are no to long and vertical directive

As I said at the beginning of this section, there are practical limitations when measuring so large a loudspeaker. While I am confident that my measurements regime fully characterizes the performance of a small speaker (such as KEF's LS50, which I reviewed last month), with a speaker as large as Wilson's Alexandria XLF, the measurements offer suggestions rather than certainties.

I'm not sure I understand what the implication is here - because it would seem that, by this statement, you could be confident in the response of the speaker above a certain frequency (let's say somewhere above the high pass moving from the bass drivers to the mid/tweet module) - and that those measurements, per the assumptions you derive from your methods ordinarily, would be more of the "certainty" variety and less of the "suggestion" variety.

Would you say that you are cnfident in the response of the speaker above ca: 150Hz?

I tend to stay away from the comment section following reviews, mine and those of other reviewers, and this thread is a good reason why.

The arrogance, stupidity and ignorance is simply appalling and depressing.

I have had many of the world's greatest speakers in my room and I've heard others in other settings: homes, stores and shows around the world.

There are MANY different sounds that are valid and designed for different tastes. The inability of some here to understand that, not to mention understanding how to interpret measurements, is just plain pathetic.

Were I to be led around by measurements, all of which are CRUDE compared to the ear/brain, I'd be listening to CDs...

Despite a slightly heavier moving mass, but thanks to a more powerful motor, bass from 2242 are much tighter offering better transient response and allowing more freedom in upper frequency cut off while bass through 2241 are more of the rolling type.

Similarly one can compare the same parameters in JBL pro offering versus the Focal drivers used in the Wilson family design:

Clearly, with a low BL and heavy moving mass, the Focal drivers exhibit quite a low output for such large drivers - a serious problem when trying to recreate live dynamics-, and won't physically deliver faster transients than their JBL pro counterparts, that is clean, lean bass. Other factors such as cone rigidity might help compensate but from the start, I would expect the Focal sound to be plump. Conversely, the 2226 won't go as deep as the Audiom 15, yet its bass will be tighter, punchier. My recent audition of the Focal Grand Utopia confirmed that feeling versus the quickness and tone of the JBL. And here we keep the comparison to bass/upper bass, as cone midranges versus compression would add another level of challenge for the expensive speaker as it did with the Utopia.

So the Wilsons or Focal are of course beautifully crafted, well designed speakers destined to plush interiors and lovers of a certain kind of sound, just as Cadillacs can deliver a certain style of ride. Fine. Yet at $200,000 there is plenty of space for DIY audiophiles to challenge them at more reasonable costs, especially when using active networking designs. Notwithstanding the choice of pro monitoring speakers that are much more affordable than these luxury items. Therefore, some DYI can proudly defend the quality of their bespoke work; however, others could tone down their arguments of authority, checkbook arrogance and quick tongue.

I have no doubt that a good DIYer could build a speaker with better frequency response, but I'd still like to see the plots and hear what a reviewer had to say about the sound (I've heard any number of components with impeccable response graphs but that sounded simply horrible.)

That of course ignores what price you'd have to sell it for to afford a full-blown factory with staff to produce it in the US, but let's just start with that.

There are any number of "hot rodders" who can build a Porsche-beater for less than the price of a new 911, but they too tend to be one-offs rather than something you can walk into a showroom and purchase.

Check the price differential between some Watt/Puppy and a 4348 JBL pro studio monitor and compare the sound... Your answer is there. At the price of this professional gear, even DIY are almost getting not economical.

plat frequency response for a driver used in a speaker is just the beginning, but with active crossover witch contain an equalizer, you can correct the response of a speaker, to make better, butt, good driver hame flat frequency response there are other parameters, you have to look, when you make a speaker, parameters, that most audiophile , don't know and a speaker tha measure good on overall parameter can't be a bad speaker, it is not the case for this wilson audio and the jbl mansionned is better than this for much lower price, beaucause jbl know what to do and have developed all the excellent driver to achieve their desgn